Skip to content


  1. ctr70
    October 9, 2010 @ 8:03 AM

    I say let’s get back to the
    I say let’s get back to the business of bootin’ ‘da bums out of their houses that don’t pay! What a joke that people try to sue on a stupid technicality when they ***didn’t make their mortgage payments***. Hello!

    To me you have absolutely no rights to your house if you miss a year of friggen payments! Let’s hope we get some judges out there in the court system with some sense and put an end to any thoughts of lawsuits reversing foreclosures.

    • peterb
      October 9, 2010 @ 8:55 AM

      Supply will remain low and
      Supply will remain low and people will live in their homes for free. A new twist, legal delay, on “extend and pretend”.

    • CAwireman
      October 17, 2010 @ 9:50 PM

      I believe Wamu was taken over
      I believe Wamu was taken over by Chase?

  2. CAwireman
    October 9, 2010 @ 12:45 PM

    Rich, good points. Also,
    Rich, good points. Also, wanted to mention that once properties are removed from the Foreclosure process, it places them (motivated sellers wanting to preserve credit history)back in the
    game. For the majority of those who must sell but can’t, they can take more time to wander through the short sale process, which I’ve hear has become far more streamlined/refined at certain institutions. I believe a SS’s still places a black credit mark against the seller/prior owner, but must less so than a full foreclosure.

    As was described very well by someone on the site recently, its probably not a conspiracy-motivated effort, just the weight of the foreclosure machine forcing it to collapse in on itself, at least temporarily.

    Only time will tell, but it could have the uninteded effort of placing the property back in the hands of the delinquent owner, and potentially allowing the bank/s to consider letting it go through the short sale process.

    The academic interest for many of us, and the harsh reality for those directly affected is what happens to those owners who’be been foreclosed upon, evicted, but potentially now who may be able to move back in and reside in the property.

    We’ll see….

  3. no_such_reality
    October 10, 2010 @ 7:39 AM

    So basically, the banks were
    So basically, the banks were negligent on the front end and now they’re negligent on the back end.

    I realize BofA got strong armed into eating WaMu, but frankly, if you’re a financial institution lying on foreclosure docs it’s time for you to be dismantled and put into receivership.

  4. CricketOnTheHearth
    October 10, 2010 @ 7:43 AM

    A lot of the “sloppy
    A lot of the “sloppy paperwork” already existed, it’s just that the big “foreclosure push” has now uncovered it. In the rush to securitize these mortgages, actual title to them in many cases got lost. No title, no standing to foreclose.
    I had another great article specifically about the MERS, but I can’t find it now.

    That puts these houses straight into legal limbo– the resident can’t be kicked out, but they can’t sell it either. The worst of both worlds for the housing market and for us wanting to buy.

  5. BKlawyer
    October 10, 2010 @ 2:24 PM

    Well- more than a few
    Well- more than a few lawyers have lost their licenses here in CA over “produce the note” litigation. Alot of judges thought it was a cute trick to claim that the note could not be produced but you were still 2 yrs. behind on the mortgage. This thing is about to blow up in a real bad way. Lawyers are gonna start filing injunctions to stop foreclosures here in CA based on the “fraud’ which really isn’t.

  6. MostlyLurk
    October 10, 2010 @ 5:12 PM

    BKLawyer – can you provide
    BKLawyer – can you provide more details/links about how attorneys lost their license due to “produce the note” litigation?

    I thought it was pretty difficult for an attorney to have their licensed revoked – that you would have to misappropriate client funds or similarly breach fiduciary duties in an extremely obvious and brazen way.

  7. pjwal
    October 13, 2010 @ 10:39 AM

    Can someone please inform me
    Can someone please inform me what is so wrong about this “robo-signer” scandal? What additional information is needed outside of the lender being behind on their mortgage payment to start the foreclusure process? I mean, were lenders that were current caught up in foreclosures because of it? I can understand how it would be a better business practice to actually contact some lenders behind on their payments and attempt to work with them, but when you have a book of literally millions of lenders, it seems that is not always possible either.


  8. pjwal
    October 13, 2010 @ 10:54 AM

    Rich Toscano wrote:
    In some

    [quote=Rich Toscano]
    In some states, California not among them, the foreclosure process
    requires that servicers sign an affidavit swearing that they have
    confirmed certain facts about the loan to be foreclosed upon.  In
    their efforts to blaze through all the piled-up foreclosures, some
    servicers signed such forms in bulk without having actually confirmed
    the individual facts.  This puts the legitimacy of some
    foreclosures into question.

    Ok, I did not read the above before my previous comments, but my general questions remain. What are the certain facts that need to be confirmed? Must a person confirm them? Can’t a computer confirm these facts? I mean, wouldn’t a person confirm them by looking at a database anyway? This seems to me it would just add a point of potential failure.

Leave a Reply